The welfare state is unsustainable economically, socially and morally.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

More bleating about budget cuts

Over a 1,000 budget advisors are waiting to see whether their government funding will continue. This is pitched as a terrible situation by the contractors and opposition, including the Sallies (who are now just a de facto state agency.)

I 'worked' for an organisation that had voluntary budget advisers. It was headed by a couple of paid full-time staff but the rest were older women, most retired. If they needed it, they could get petrol reimbursement. Other wise they took nothing for the services they performed.

Budget advising is the perfect role for a superannuitant. As the state pays people to retire perhaps those people could give back?

There is massive resource in the baby boomers. I continue to volunteer in a different role and thoroughly enjoy the work. While not a superannuitant I am still saving the state by doing something it would otherwise have to pay for.

But the left always want it to be about the state funding everything so they can complain when it doesn't happen.

A fresh mindset is required. Ask not what your country can do for you etc.

8 comments:

'An Auckland vegetarian cafe were shocked when the Auckland City Mission declined their offer for free, healthy food.

But Auckland City Mission says declining the deliveries was a mistake which happened because of a miscommunication and the charity would like to start up the partnership again.

Lisa Burne, operations manager at Revive, said the cafe had been providing the Mission with leftover food every Thursday and Friday for six to eight weeks when a City Mission staff member called to tell her the donations were no longer needed because the Mission's homeless clients wouldn't eat them....'

.. agreed - sad but true in so many ways. I wrote to them several years ago and warned them that one day a Government that is hostile to faith based charities will cut off their funding, preferring instead to expand the functions of the State. It fell on deaf ears.

I also agree that there is a huge voluntary sector out there which could do with highlighting and promoting. One charity we are associated with runs Op Shops. I visited one last week in Invercargill and met between 40 - 50 volunteers who along with two full time staff keep it operational. It couldn't function without them - they are providing a great community service, and the profits are benefiting children in some of the world's toughest places.

All of this happens without a cent of Government funding or any Government consultants.

More people are needing budget advice as the dollars struggle to go the distance including plenty who would be classed as "Baby Boomers." Many elderly living on the bread line or below it rely on charity to make ends meet. Food banks per see are the new age equivalent of soup kitchens from last century and what a sad picture they were.This country has a vast underclass which has no link to the world I live in. I have some associates who live on benefits and have made an art form of sucking as much charity from the willing are they are prepared to offer. One thing which bugs me is rate subsidies. Living in a small community,the rate demands continue to rise and because of hard times, more ratepayers are applying for rate relief. Guess who has to make up the difference?

Yeah it is terrible. Every such service - public or private - should be definitively terminated immediately with zero notice, not left hanging.

Total, unannounced, immediate abolition is the only effective way to reform welfare; the only way to stop it coming back.

Inasmuch as 'budget advisors' help families to continue on welfare or highly subsidised jobs, or "renegotiate" loans and hire-purchase agreements (i.e. theft) then they only make things worse for the country by ameliorating disincentives - being 10% more efficient is like a 10% benefit rise, where what we need is to end all benefits immediately, permanently, without any warning.

@ Mark, you make a valid point re rates rebates but in my case it is rather unfair.Fourteen years ago we bought a rather ugly rural block and have invested serious energy in creating a beautiful place to retire.The City expects us to pay rates of over $3000 compared to an urban demand of around 20% of that who receive water, sewer, sealed access, rubbish collection, none of which they provide for us. We get a very substandard metalled track but because we could be described as more fortunate as regards lifestyle it is deemed we should be gouged.

The first 15 years of my retirement I volunteered as a St Johns first response person, a volunteer fireman and devoted considerable time to other charitable effort all for zero payment so I have no shame or reluctance in claiming the rebate as our only income is national super. Yes it is our choice but it is the system.As to your rather sad suggestion as to who makes up what we claim, perhaps the luvvies who think OPMs are their right to extort and spend could be a whole lot less rapacious and curtail their empire building.Have a nice day.

Gravedodger, I understand your position having done similar in the past myself. But I knew what I was getting myself into and factored in the negatives along with the positives.Its commendable you devoted your time to altruism, but then you claim you deserve payment for your effort by way of rate rebates.I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination and in retirement have to be frugal with my wants and needs. I dont claim a rate rebate, but have to subsidize those who do. Perhaps the failing is mine.

The problem is with rates. The way they are structured, the fact that they go up faster than inflation, and that they fund all manner of goods and services and salaries that are unacceptable to many ratepayers.

Yes Mark you choose not to claim the low income rate rebate if available is a choice. I claim a low income rebate because the rate structure penalises me for a life style that in many ways is lower in what my allocated rate charge assumes I receive.

I am claiming relief from userous levels of demand many times those of properties receiving far greater sevice one Km distant within an easy walk of many coffee opportunities, yet levied at a fraction of what they demand of me.Across the nation rates are struck with far too high a rate having an element of assumed ability to pay rather than any serious effort to charge for services delivered. All to often as Lindsay points out well outside what many consider the core responsibilities of councilAs a Ratepayer to Wellington Regional Council prior to retirement while living twenty Kms beyond the Commutor service that originated at Masterton I was levied for a rail service never needed or used and any suggestion of assisting with traffic congestion relief again of zero benefit, which was only a forced contribution for relieving a problem never encountered nor caused.

The annual rates rebate claimed is not in any way regarded by me as any sort of payment it is merely the only redress available for a perceived rort.

Comments policy

About Me

Lindsay Mitchell has been researching and commenting on welfare since 2001. Many of her articles have been published in mainstream media and she has appeared on radio,tv and before select committees discussing issues relating to welfare. Lindsay is also an artist who works under commission and exhibits at Wellington, New Zealand, galleries.